I was reading through this thread again and I was wondering - what's in an opening talk, what do you mean by 'do the clairvoyance', and what is healing?

__________________

Ok storm.
The opening talk is a personal thing to each meduim, they sometimes tell a story of past things they seen or heard or maybe they will talk of what they deem the afterlife to be about ect, either way its very interesting to hear.
The clairvoyance bit means the meduim will then tune in to the spirit side of life to hear what if anything? they have to say to any of us in the group, rg messages from past people we knew in this life.
The healing part is where healers lay hands on you eg, you lay on a couch or sit its up to the person, they go from your head to your toes laying hands on you, you will feel heat go through every part they touch.
This is said to be spirit sending healing to you via the healer bringing health and comfort to you.
Hmmm when i said from head to toe i never meant the personal parts of ones anatomy lol.
I hope this helps you more storm hun, im glad your asking questions as i love to tell what ive learned to people.
Thanks for your interest babe xxxx

Budden, you type just like wild_cherry, another member on this board :)

__________________
"I done a lot of things I ain't proud of. And the things I am proud of, are disgusting." - Moe Syzlak

Yeah, I noticed that too, Deadlock.

Yes, thanks for your reply.

What they deem the afterlife to be? Does each medium have a different interpretation then?


So do you all take it in turns to be the clairvoyant and healer, because you're all capable of connecting to spirits and healing?

Do you meet other healing groups?

__________________

Each meduim dosent really have a different view of the afterlife they just talk about it in different ways.
Yes all the training meduims do have turns in the group but only on fledglings nights as they are training its only around once a month that they do this, i havent as yet as im not at that point yet.
And yes other groups visit us and us them, as its all in the spiritulist movement.

I think the concept of 'soul' is a by-product of the Cartesian split (introduced by Descartes) between body and mind. According to this philosophy upon which the contemporary western cultures are built, the body is the instinctive, and the mind is the rational. I think this is flawed-- the two are not separate at all, and they both originate from the brain, and the feedback the brain gets through external and internal events.

I believe that the concept consciousness should also be redefined, as it is based on this. Now, bodily functioning and instinct are not rational, and thus not in the mind. I'd rather propose a continuum of consciousness, with on the one end things like bodily functioning, further to the middle unconscious reactions and instinct, and somewhere on the other hand conscious thought. Though I'm thinking this would still not be a radical enough redefinition.

In any case, the concept of 'soul' I think was created to make us feel less like a machine, within the frame of this philosophy. We tend to feel some 'personality' that is neither conscious or unconscious that guides us through our days and makes us who we are, instead of someone else. Now, if you let go of the Cartesian split and try to fit all these things somewhere on the continuum of consciousness, you'll come to the conclusion that body, mind and soul are in fact one. Your body is a unity, entirely physical, and everything you think, do and feel is because something affects or goes on in your body.

In this line of thought, you cannot consciously try to fight against a desire. I think what you're doing instead is mediating between different impulses and trying to weigh what you really want to do (which is the desire) against what you have learnt (from experience) and what is socially acceptable. That is, what you're doing is not overruling your 'uncultured, animalistic, unruly instincts', but considering various impulses and trying to predict what the effects of these impulses are on yourself and everything that could be involved in the act.

After all, if you always try to ignore a certain impulse because it is considered socially unacceptable, you'll in the end go mad in some way, because you're ignoring part of yourself. You can't try to ignore a certain "unconscious" impulse (of yourself!) at all times. But you can't live like an animal either, because we are social beings, and breaking through social structures all the time has adverse effects on us, too.

This partially proves (to me, at least) that your body and your mind are one and the same, and they are both controlled from the brain, with the help of the rest of your body and external input. You can't live your life guided by either your body or your mind.

I'd love to get some feedback on this idea.

__________________

I'm not sure I understand how you define the terms you're using, e.g. "body" and "mind". To me, if we are going to talk about a "mind" (which in my opinion, is not physical) then that is the same thing as the "soul". I see them as the same entity - the name we give to all those behaviours we haven't found an explanation/reason for yet (either through an area in the brain that explains it, or through the chemical compositions that makes up our body).

Also, "body": You're saying the body is a physical entity, and the body, mind, and soul are one, but the "mind" and "soul" are not physical entities so how can they seamlessly become part of something is a purely physical entity? Unless the "body" is not absolutely physical somehow?

Not sure if I'm making any sense. I'm kinda tired.

__________________

I think that im going to upset someone here, but i hope its taken in the form its meant.
Budden you sound brainwashed by this and its not good for you at all.
Seek help please.

Well thanks for your opinion, it thrilled me to read it.
Ill join the ranks of other brainwashed people then like.
Doris stokes.
Colin fry ect and ill consider myself lucky to be in such good company.
In any case your very welcome to diasect my brain to prove your point anytime.

If Doris Stokes was so good at what she did, how come she had a fully booked diary when she died? Didn't see that one coming, did she ...

Anyway. Budden, believe in whatever you want to if it works for you, its your choice and yours alone, that's what freedom is all about.

__________________
"I done a lot of things I ain't proud of. And the things I am proud of, are disgusting." - Moe Syzlak

Ty deadlock.
If i was to care what anyone thought id be a very idiotic person, im very happy in my own skin.

It would really help the discussion of the thread if you could elaborate why you feel this way instead of just stating that Budden needs help

__________________

In answer to you deadlock, you seem to be mistaking mediumship with fortune telling.
Doris stokes was not a fortune teller, she couldent predict her own time of death, no more than you or i can.
She see and spoke with spirit two different things.

I concur. You could say the same for anyone who follows any religion or belief system, really. The only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of subscribers.

Any level of faith requires a bit of dedication and... well... faith. Then you couple it with enthusiasm, and suddenly you're brainwashed?

__________________

I'm using body and mind in the sense we commonly use it. Body = everything physical and the subconscious, mind = your thinking.

I'm saying (somewhat like you in the 1st paragraph) that the mind and the soul don't actually exist, and what we call "mind" and "soul" is simply a name for concepts that we have recognised, even though they aren't there. It's arbitrary; I think we're misinterpreting various levels of consciousness and giving them a name when we talk about "mind" and "soul". All we have is "body", which can perform tasks based on external and internal input, and it does so somewhere along the continuum of consciousness. The brain is just the control chamber, or mediator, based on the input it receives.

__________________

I see what you're saying, I think. That everything is biological. I understand that. I think maybe I understand your continuum of consciousness theory as well.

To return to the concept of a soul, though. Perhaps what people call a soul is our uniqueness: although there are certain things that are innate and that we are programmed for, we take external input on board in different ways - because of differences in our body - and learn from experiences in different ways. I think the product of our unique processing of input is what we call personality/soul.

So maybe it's not that the "soul" does not exist, it's just that it can be redefined.

You'll have a hard time convincing people the human species is not mysterious though, no matter how much science you throw at them

__________________

Budden has been banned for trolling using multiple accounts. This ban is permanent. Just like trolling, having multiple accounts is against forum rules and it will not be tolerated, especially when the multiple accounts are used for trolling.

Feel free to continue discussing this topic, it's a great topic.

Personally i don't believe but i find it fascinating that some people do with such fervor. However, i like to keep an open mind and if there's ever any solid, peer reviewed scientific proof, i'll read about it and if it makes sense, i could very well become a believer.

__________________

I don't know too much about the brain, but the impression I got so far is that it alters during your lifetime to adapt to the things that are most useful to you. That's why it's so hard to break a habit, I suppose. Your brain does have the capacity of 'rewiring' (through learning, new experiences, etcetera), but only on the basis of what you already have. It's like a mini-evolution; the adaptation of the brain to its environment.

So what makes us unique is both the brain we start with, and how our brain changes throughout our lives (the first few years being the most influential). Animals, I'm sure, have this too. Pets have their own personalities too, for example. What makes it so striking in people is 1) that we are people ourselves and 2) our brain is very powerful, so there are many ways in which we can be distinct from each other in terms of personality, traits, behaviour, impulse, etcetera.

If you want to call that 'soul', sure, but it would be quite a redefinition of how it's commonly used by others.

__________________

I agree with what you've said. Pretty much what I'm saying. I think what makes personality so striking in humans is that we're self-aware: we're conscious of the presence of our feelings.

I never actually considered deeply what the soul was before you posted. I'd always assumed, like you, that it didn't exist. I think I prefer my new definition to my old "it doesn't exist" though.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if it's that dramatic a redefinition. I guess if you ask most people what a soul is, those who believe in the concept of a soul will say something along the lines of "it's who you are". That science has made a lot of progress in explaining the things that make up "who you are" appears to be irrelevant.

I mean, we still have people stressing the theory in theory of evolution, so really, it seems to me that if people do not wish to understand or accept something (circle as appropriate), then they won't.

__________________

I feel i will not be getting the reading i requested. (N) sadtimes

__________________

I'll give you a reading if you like

Thread cleaned up. Please proceed with the topic.

__________________